Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Just an idea.

Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.

In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:24:17 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Just an idea.

Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.


Ooooo, I like it. We did something similar in Reg 12 for our Spring safety seminars. From the previous season's whoopsies, I culled a list of willing presenters to give the "Scared Witless" vignettes.
It was an audio version of "I Learned About Flying From That". Obviously they had to be survivors, and Willing. It was a very popular format - five minutes and done.

In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Thanks, Evan and others. I make the stories personal to make them pertinent.

I will occasionally protect the guilty. One pilot told his 'Witless' story, proudly, smilingly. When we got to the part where - 'how would you change this to avoid the whole scenario?' -- there was a blank stare by the pilot.
'Uuuh, I didn't crash, it was a great job.'
The audience sneaked a bunch of quick looks at me.... and the show went on.
It was a GREAT teaching moment, that I had Not Scripted. Even ~8 months later,
he didn't know what was off-the-page wrong about his thinking.

With a savvy CD/CM, the public replay could be a useful disincentive. And a delightful relief from, " I got high, ran fast; got low, slowed up; went the other way and got home first" talks.

Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.


Consensus on what's unacceptable behavior. That's the trick.....
and I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.
A group of pilots, that's fun.
Sometimes we call it a race/contest.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 3:14:06 AM UTC-5, CindyB wrote:

I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.

Anyone who thinks crazy behavior is in any way necessary and/or advantageous in competition flying simply hasn't studied this problem... at least this is how it looks to me. Maybe BB or someone else disagrees with me and has the data to convince me otherwise (in that case, contact me offline please, I am genuinely interested).

Consistent efficiency and *insight* is what wins contests. Wish I had a little more of that at times :-).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 9:18:45 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

Your asking us to support your views after we read your below disclaimer?

Disclaimers
This is a summary of information available to the rules committee as of the November meeting,
collected for the purpose of examining rules and procedures in the interests of improving future
contest safety. This is not the NTSB, and we have not done any independent accident
investigation. Errors are likely. This is a report from the safety subcommittee (me) to the rules
committee. Recommendations are mine only, and not endorsed by the RC.


Then John, you state above "Errors are likely" and then with your below statement, I question why it's even being discussed?

"""Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet."""

If your wishing support( which I would heartily do) please show us why it's needed with reasonable, well-founded facts but please not with unreasonable and illogical statements which are tainted with radical extremist views. :)).

Best. Tom #711.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 8:18:45 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

I agree with John, and add that I cannot understand the distinction between existing airspace rules and a 500' exclusion. Yes it is one more. Is one more bad and one less good? Then let's also get rid of altitude, finish line heights, cloud restrictions, SUA restrictions. Like an un-drug tested Olympics. See just how crazy people will get. I'm guessing that a number of people in this discussion would like to see that.

Stories are often embellished. Flight logs not so much.

Flight logs of day/contest winners doing insanely stupid things and getting away with it on a regular basis would be more relevant to this discussion than also-rans making ill advised attempts to stay away from the ground. The stories ought to give you a good idea of where to start looking.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Are you reading the parallel discussion on SGP and what it takes to win there? Sadly the crash records don't lie, and we have lost many top pilots as well as many beginners over the years.
John cochrane

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:18:45 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Can you point to the specific examples in this report that would be affected by your proposed "rule"? It's possible I'm not reading the report correctly, but I'm having a hard time finding the examples (at least in this report) that correlate to the "hard charging guy determined to climb out from 400 feet".

P3

T8: The case for hard deck is not directed at winners, it's directed at everyone. The two examples -- two of many -- show pilots doing desperate low altitude things, pretty clearly not giving up and landing anywhere near soon enough. Were they thinking about points? I don't know, but their flight tracks sure look like it.
John Cochrane